There has been a lot posted recently on a certain preacher who was arrested in a city in Scotland while preaching at people.
Depending on who you read, it is either a preacher arrested FOR preaching the gospel, or a preacher arrested for breach of the peace.
It has divided opinion and bloggers have taken to their computers in large numbers, as clearly I am moved to do.
But my area of interest today is not so much this incident but rather how we deal with such incidents.
For the record, I agree with much of the first 3/4 of the following blogger's article: http://theweeflea.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/persecuting-preachers-in-perth/ (the writer of the wee flea is much more conservative in his theology than I am on other issues).
The part where I have to pause is at the end of the post, where there is a personal (genuine and heartfelt I believe) plea to this preacher to repent.
It reminds me somewhat of the other news grabbing (but on a much wider scale) open letter to Miley Cyrus from Sinead O'Connor. A well meant open letter was written, which I actually believe has done a lot of good. However, when I read it, I knew immediately that the intended recipient would be one of the only people to not take it well, and so it proved to be the case.
The reason is that when things are public and personal, our response is usually one of defensive behaviour, and usually this becomes counteroffensive. Our pride prevents most of us from taking these things on board. The exception is perhaps in cases of extremely low self esteem where we automatically take on all negative comments (and filter out the positive ones).
Going back to our street preacher, the blogger above asks him to repent. Straight away, this is going to get his back up (and a few of his supporters and others have clearly responded in the comments section).
There is in fact a small unintentional irony in that the blogger rightly points out "you can’t preach if no one is listening!" However, a public posting like this has some similarities to public preaching. The intended recipient is not listening, because he is not there.
I believe these kinds of personal requests are best done face to face and in private, rather than in what can be a humiliating (and less effective) public call.
This is not to say it is wrong to highlight the flaws in the method. When Jesus spoke to people he was often interested in the details and gave constructive comments. However, to condemn a person is very different from constructively critiquing a method. The problem is that our constructive comments can easily be taken as condemnation if we are not very careful in how we express ourselves.
If we are seeking a change in someone's behaviour, I think we need to try and build relationship with that person first and inspire people from a position of love and trust. This is where I feel the street preacher failed to engage properly.
While the blogger of the wee flea was actually criticising the method (in a detailed and helpful manner), I don't feel the call to repentance will have the desired effect.
One thing that helps me greatly is to ask myself the question "how would I respond to a criticism of something dear to me?" By what method would I receive the feedback best and from whom? When giving critical feedback we need to ask ourselves how to give it, when to give it, where to give it and what exactly needs to be said and left unsaid.
To be clear, I am not (ironically) having a go at the wee flea blogger. We actually agree on most of what he is saying. Nor do I have a personal grudge against the street preacher (or Miley or Sinead!). But these events do give plenty pause for musing!
God bless.
For the record, I agree with much of the first 3/4 of the following blogger's article: http://theweeflea.wordpress.com/2013/10/04/persecuting-preachers-in-perth/ (the writer of the wee flea is much more conservative in his theology than I am on other issues).
The part where I have to pause is at the end of the post, where there is a personal (genuine and heartfelt I believe) plea to this preacher to repent.
It reminds me somewhat of the other news grabbing (but on a much wider scale) open letter to Miley Cyrus from Sinead O'Connor. A well meant open letter was written, which I actually believe has done a lot of good. However, when I read it, I knew immediately that the intended recipient would be one of the only people to not take it well, and so it proved to be the case.
The reason is that when things are public and personal, our response is usually one of defensive behaviour, and usually this becomes counteroffensive. Our pride prevents most of us from taking these things on board. The exception is perhaps in cases of extremely low self esteem where we automatically take on all negative comments (and filter out the positive ones).
Going back to our street preacher, the blogger above asks him to repent. Straight away, this is going to get his back up (and a few of his supporters and others have clearly responded in the comments section).
There is in fact a small unintentional irony in that the blogger rightly points out "you can’t preach if no one is listening!" However, a public posting like this has some similarities to public preaching. The intended recipient is not listening, because he is not there.
I believe these kinds of personal requests are best done face to face and in private, rather than in what can be a humiliating (and less effective) public call.
This is not to say it is wrong to highlight the flaws in the method. When Jesus spoke to people he was often interested in the details and gave constructive comments. However, to condemn a person is very different from constructively critiquing a method. The problem is that our constructive comments can easily be taken as condemnation if we are not very careful in how we express ourselves.
If we are seeking a change in someone's behaviour, I think we need to try and build relationship with that person first and inspire people from a position of love and trust. This is where I feel the street preacher failed to engage properly.
While the blogger of the wee flea was actually criticising the method (in a detailed and helpful manner), I don't feel the call to repentance will have the desired effect.
One thing that helps me greatly is to ask myself the question "how would I respond to a criticism of something dear to me?" By what method would I receive the feedback best and from whom? When giving critical feedback we need to ask ourselves how to give it, when to give it, where to give it and what exactly needs to be said and left unsaid.
To be clear, I am not (ironically) having a go at the wee flea blogger. We actually agree on most of what he is saying. Nor do I have a personal grudge against the street preacher (or Miley or Sinead!). But these events do give plenty pause for musing!
God bless.
